1 2026:CGHC:5938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 75 of 2026 1 – ABC (Juvenile) S/o Xyz Aged About 17 Years Nil ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Police Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For the State : Ms. Avleen Juneja, Panel Lawyer For the complainant : Mr. U.N.S. Chandel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 03/02/ 2026 1. The present Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC)/Children Court, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 323/2025 upholding the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Crime No. 736/2025 registered at P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur for ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.06 10:51:33 +0530 2 the offence u/s 109, 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, was rejected. 2. (i) As per the prosecution case, on 29.10.2025 a report was lodged by the complainant at P.S.Masturi, District Bilaspur that on 28.10.2025 at about 05.55 in the evening he was sitting along with his maternal uncle and 9-10 persons and they were discussing things.. At that time, 2 unknown persons started firing on them from a distance of about 10-15 feet with intention to kill them from the right and left sides of vehicles parked on road. The complainant and all those sitting there fled to save their lives. A bullet pierced into Raju Singh’s left knee and a finger on his left hand, causing injury near his waist. The two unidentified assailants fired indiscriminately with pistols, intending to kill the complainant Raju Singh. Both the assailants wearing handkerchiefs over their mouths, fled towards Bilaspur Road after the shooting. On such complaint, the crime was registered. During investigation, the juvenile applicant was found to be involved in the incident, he was arrested on 29.10.2025 and detained in the observation Home in Bilaspur. (ii) The applicant had filed application u/s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, which has been rejected by order dated 09.12.2025, against which, he had filed appeal. The appellate Court has rejected the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board by impugned order dated 31.12.2025. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the juvenile applicant submits that the witnesses have not identified the juvenile as assailant and the allegation of conspiracy is not clear and on the basis of his memorandum, motor cycle was seized from him. He has relied on a 3 decision of the Supreme Court in Juvenile in Conflict with Law V Vs. The State of Rajasthan decided on 14th August, 2024 and submits that the learned courts below have not considered the phraseology used in sub-section 1 of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act while rejecting the bail application. He further submits that as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail to the juvenile is a rule and refusal of the same is an exceptional. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and in view of the above cited decision, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that in connivance with the other adult accused, the juvenile applicant has also participated in commission of serious offence and the motorcycle used by the applicant in the offence has been seized from him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. Section 12 of the Act, 2015 makes it absolutely clear that a child alleged to be in conflict with law should be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. The only embargo created is that in case the release of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied. 7. In the instant case, it reflects from case diary that the juvenile applicant in connivance with six other adult criminals has played an active role in a well planned attempt to commit murder of complainant and another. It also appears from prosecution case that 4 in the month of Sept. 2025, other accused Akbar Khan, Nagendra Rai and Takeshwar Patle met Vishwajeet Anant and gave him a contract of Rs.2 lakhs to kill Nitesh Singh and his family members Raju Singh, Chandrakant Singh, Tamesh Singh and his other relatives. The accused had planned that Vishwajeet Singh would not be in the village on the day of the incident and if Nitesh and others were killed then Vishwajeet Anant would get a good position in land related to work and politics, if they were caught then they would be saved by getting the minor boys surrendered. 8. The Social investigation report states that the juvenile in conflict with law is being detained in the reformative/observation home for the first time, but a crime has been registered against the juvenile u/s 191(2), 296, 351(2 and 115(2) of the IPC in Crime No.31/2005 at Masturi Police Station. The juvenile has committed the present crime with co-offenders, some of whom are adults. If the juvenile is granted bail, he may come into contact with the known accused persons. This could have an adverse impact on his psyche and potentially defeat the purpose of justice. 9. In this case, the trial court observed that the release of the child would defeat the ends of justice and rejected the bail application. 10. The learned appellate Court by impugned order dated 31.12.2025, has observed that the circumstances of the case also indicate that the accused are using the juvenile offendors to commit crimes by keeping them under their influence and direction. Therefore, detention in the institution is likely to have a positive impact on his behavior and attitude and he will also receive a disciplined environment. 11. There is no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or legal 5 infirmity in the findings recorded by the appellate Court in impugned order. The appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case as also the social investigation report, which on reasonable grounds does not support the release of applicant, had dismissed the appeal. The manner in which the assault has been made by firing gun shots itself reveals that the serious offence has been committed by the accused persons wherein role of the applicant cannot be denied at this stage. 12. Having thus considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the over all facts situation of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court and the Juvenile Justice Board warranting inference in this revision. 13. Consequently, this Revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. S Sd Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao